We were slightly surprised by a fairly recent article in the Evening Standard suggesting that Andy Lord, TfL Commissioner for Transport, wants to at least double the number of Crossrail trains to Heathrow Terminal 5.
To be clear, this sounds a bit more dramatic than it is given that doubling the number of Crossrail trains actually means increasing from 2 trains per hour (tph) to 4tph and, in any case, Heathrow Terminal 5 rail station is already served by 4tph Heathrow Express trains so the total increase would be from 6tph to 8tph.
It is not the suggestion that surprised us for it has been talked about for years, it was the timing and it being initiated by TfL. However, on reflection, both factors would appear to make sense.
In this article we look at why now and what has prompted TfL to raise it. Our suspicious minds also look at possible real reasons for proposing this, what challenges there might be and hazarding a guess as to what frequencies and stopping patterns will operate should the idea come to fruition. Before looking at what is behind this, we wonder who is behind this.
Whose idea is it, really?
It was Andy Lord who brought up the subject at a TfL board meeting, but he may have been prompted to do so by either someone above him or someone below him. We look at the likely contenders and their possible reasons for raising this.
The obvious person to believe initiated this was Andy Lord himself. This would make sense. He is the Commissioner (a very appropriate word here) and 4tph to Terminal 5 is an obvious objective to pursue in order to provide London with a more attractive, more complete transport network. Additionally, he used to work for British Airways (BA) at Heathrow which is one of only two airlines to operate from Terminal 5. The other is Iberia which is owned by IAG which in turn is the parent company of British Airways. Iberia only operate a few flights a day from Terminal 5 – all to Madrid, Iberia’s main hub. This is done to connect with onward BA trans-Atlantic flights. Andy Lord must be well aware of the benefits that extra Elizabeth line trains to Terminal 5 will bring both to TfL and to British Airways, the national flag carrier.
Equally, we would not be entirely surprised if Andy Lord’s boss, the Mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, prompted Andy Lord to start the ball rolling. That raises the question of why he didn’t openly suggest it himself but sometimes it is better to leave it to someone with better technical knowledge and background understanding to explain and promote a proposal. Or maybe he thought having a mayor openly suggesting a better service to Terminal 5 whilst opposing the expansion of Heathrow Airport would send mixed messages as to his stance on airport expansion.
If Sir Sadiq were behind this it would probably be in order to increase revenue, present a better image of London to encourage tourists and investment, and to improve the rail service in west London.
Finally, it would not be at all surprising if Howard Smith OBE, TfL’s director of the Elizabeth line, was behind all this as it fits in with his beliefs and past pronouncements. Howard has always talked up maximising the use of Crossrail from long before it was opened. He was also behind the proposal to take over some train services that were originally intended to be run by the Great Western Railway (GWR) as limited stop services on the ‘relief lines’ (‘slow’ lines) between various outer stations towards Reading and Paddington. This is why we have 2tph extra peak services to and from Reading that omit quite a few stations stops. Also, prior to Crossrail opening, he pointed out that it was ridiculous that Crossrail was planned to serve the lightly-used Terminal 4 with 4tph but not serve Terminal 5, the largest of the airline terminals, at all.
Other beliefs of Howard Smith are the importance of ‘turn up and go’ and, as far as possible maintaining simple stopping patterns. Howard believes in keeping things simple for the passenger with easy to remember departure times, ideally with the same service throughout the day. He also favours a simple stopping pattern which, as far as possible, means all trains stopping at all stations. This philosophy can clearly be seen on London Overground.
Thus 4tph to Terminal 5 all day fits in with Howard’s philosophy. 2tph does not.
Why Now and Why is TfL Proposing This?
When 2tph to Terminal 5 was announced a few years ago, it was done with much fanfare and the DfT were keen to emphasise their involvement as well as providing press releases. In these press releases there was talk of them (the DfT) reviewing the possibility of increasing the service to 4tph. We also note that the TfL press release at the time issued on 13 July 2017 stated:
A joint feasibility study is also underway to look at delivering a further two Elizabeth line trains per hour to Terminal 5 meaning eight Elizabeth line trains per hour serving Heathrow, as well as additional work on developing western rail access to Heathrow.
We have heard nothing since about this review and we presume this silence has prompted TfL to take the initiative.
From TfL and the Mayor’s perspective, there couldn’t be a better time to raise the subject. The Mayor is now dealing with a Labour government who one would like to think is more receptive to TfL’s ideas. The current Rail Minister is Lord Hendy, a former TfL Commissioner for Transport. TfL has new trains on order, due to come into service in 2026, and TfL is currently exploring how these can best be utilised. This is a rare occasion when they don’t have to worry too much about rolling stock implications and costs. Rather cynically, we would point out that this is a scheme that could be implemented before the Mayor stands for re-election, should he choose to do so.
The Heathrow Airport Management Factor
Looking further afield, there has been a change of management at Heathrow Airport (which owns Heathrow Express). They appear to be far less dogmatic and more pragmatic, which has various implications. The first is that they want a third runway so would be anxious to increase the portion of airline passengers using public transport to bolster their case. Unlike the somewhat indecisive previous government, it seems that the current Labour government has firmly come down on prioritising growth and the chancellor has expressed her support for a third runway. With management effort concentrated on presenting as good a case as possible for expansion, there is a feeling that they are currently less concerned about actually running Heathrow Express themselves.
The other consequence of a pragmatic approach is a recognition that it would make sense to increase terminal capacity before building a third runway and regardless of whether or not a third runway would be built. An increase in terminal capacity and adjustments to the existing runways would allow more larger planes to occupy the same number of airline slots and consequently allow modern, quieter, larger, more fuel-efficient planes to bring about an increase in the number of passengers. Terminal 5 is one of two terminals that is proposed for enlargement – and hence more passengers.
What is the Real Purpose of The Proposal?
Our cynical minds always look for the real reasons behind announcements. Is it really to serve Terminal 5? If so, is it solely to serve Terminal 5? As we have mentioned many times before, the number of passengers using Crossrail to go to and from Heathrow isn’t actually that great, although it considerably exceeds the number of passengers using Heathrow Express. If, hypothetically, you could run Crossrail trains non-stop between Paddington and Heathrow, you probably wouldn’t actually have that many passengers aboard the nine-carriage train. Capturing 100% of the Heathrow Express market share wouldn’t improve things by much either.
First Possibility: It really is to just serve Terminal 5
We have to consider the possibility that the reason for serving Terminal 5 really is simple. It is to provide a better service to Terminal 5. However, as described above, the numbers just don’t add-up. One cannot envisage the service running at a loss so this only makes sense is it if is believed that a better service will lead to a massive increase in ridership to Terminal 5 using Crossrail.
Second Possibility: Improve Rail Services in west London
The second possibility for the proposal is the one we believe is a major factor behind the proposal. It is about improving the rail service between Hayes & Harlington and Acton Main Line which, at least in the peak period, is in serious need of beefing up. Existing proposals for using the extra trains now on order include running extending some Paddington terminator trains to West Drayton and calling at all stations between Paddington and West Drayton.
What could be more sensible than investigating the possibility of running an extra 2tph to Terminal 5, instead of proposing a service to West Drayton? West Drayton already gets 6tph in the peak hours in the peak direction and 4tph at other times. Terminal 5 is busier than West Drayton but that includes Heathrow Express passengers. West Drayton is not an ideal place to terminate trains. The terminating platform there is to the north of the relief lines (the ones normally used by Crossrail) so involves conflicting movements and, furthermore, is also part of a freight loop.
If we are correct about this being a significant reason behind this proposal then this won’t have been the first time TfL have publicised a scheme emphasising a particular benefit passengers can relate to when, in reality, the true benefit is somewhere else. A non-TfL example is HS2 when the real benefit is mainly capacity (both passenger and freight) but was promoted as a faster railway. Even the name emphasises speed not capacity.
Third Possibility: Positioning TfL to be in a better place for a 2028 Review
A review is due to take place to look at best use of track capacity on the Great Western Main Line, with the aim of introducing changes in the June 2028 timetable. If, by then, TfL had already established 4tph to Terminal 5 or at least has gained approval to operate 4tph in future, then it will be in a much better position in these negotiations. These negotiations can last a long time, as anyone following a similar exercise on the East Coast Main Line with its delayed introduction of a radical new timetable will know.
Many have suggested that a primary objective of most parties at these future negotiations will be to argue the case for getting rid of Heathrow Express as a very inefficient, under-utilised constraint on long-distance GWR services. It makes sense for TfL to be ready to take advantage of the situation should Heathrow Express cease to operate.
We were wryly amused by a reassurance from Andy Lord quoted in the Evening Standard article:
“I think that would be complementary to the existing Heathrow Express service, and would deliver real benefit to the airport as well as our ridership and give customers who are arriving and departing from Terminal 5 a greater choice.”
It is hard to see this as just a complementary service to Heathrow Express. Heathrow Express already has pitifully low passenger numbers, which would be almost certain to go down even further should the Crossrail service to Terminal 5 match the frequency of Heathrow Express there. In that scenario Heathrow Express would struggle to survive or at least survive and break even. The only real advantage to most Heathrow Express passengers is speed but, if you are heading to central London, the Elizabeth line is generally a better bet for those burdened with luggage, especially once you factor in the time to exit from the platform at Paddington and change to reach your onward transport.
Fourth Possibility: It is about Money
Money is almost certain to play a role in this proposal. It would seem to be sensible to utilise the ten trains on order to increase revenue rather than sit in the sidings. With obvious unsatisfied demand in the outer Travelcard zones in west London in the peaks and a healthy level of off-peak use, an additional all-day service would appear to be a money-spinner. Whilst the number of passengers travelling to and from Heathrow is actually quite low, they do pay a fares premium meaning it doesn’t need many passengers to run a service to Heathrow that runs at a profit.
With TfL having considerable financial challenges, a increase in a service level proposal that should be profitable and would appear not to require any capital investment in infrastructure would seem to be an obvious candidate for approval.
The Challenges 4tph Presents
Andy Lord was very open about the challenges that 4tph to Terminal 5 presents. At least he was very open about the operational challenges. No doubt there will be negotiating challenges as well particularly with Heathrow Express, GWR, Network Rail, and DfT. There may also need to be negotiations with ORR (Office of Rail and Road) concerning adjudicating reasonable charges between different affected parties. ORR may also be involved with any adjudication concerning TfL and freight operators in order to find the necessary passenger train paths on the relief lines.
The two big challenges are:
- Making best use of capacity between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 5 stations, including platform use at Terminal 5.
- Providing a suitable timetable. As London Bridge rebuilding, Thameslink’s 2018 changes and the ECML upgrade have shown, timetabling is often the biggest challenge of all and tends to be the greatest unknown.
Capacity Between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 5
Operationally, both Terminal 4 station and Terminal 5 station are constrained for Crossrail. Terminal 4 has the luxury of two platforms for 4tph, but unfortunately it is single track between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 4. This means that trains have to be operated at 15-minute intervals with very little leeway in the event of disruption. If just one train is severely disrupted the only current realistic option for the controllers is to terminate that train prematurely in platform 5 at Hayes & Harlington.
Terminal 5 station has the opposite problem to Terminal 4. There is double track between Terminals 2 & 3 and Terminal 5 (which is shared with Heathrow Express). However, only one platform is available to Crossrail as Heathrow Express has dedicated use of one platform. Apart from anything else, this makes it nearly impossible to divert a train destined for Terminal 4 to Terminal 5 in the event of disruption.
The dedicated use of platforms can be observed by looking at the relevant live map on Open Train Times. Heathrow Express trains in passenger service have a reporting number beginning with ‘1’ and Elizabeth line trains in passenger service have a reporting number beginning with ‘9’. However, when there is a train running significantly late, the use of the platforms is sometimes swapped over for operational reasons and may remain swapped until the end of the day.
The restriction of a single platform at Terminal 5 being available to Crossrail, plus the need not to get in the way of Heathrow Express trains between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 5 (or have Heathrow Express trains get in the way of Crossrail trains), adds an additional constraint to Crossrail serving Terminal 5.
Bring Platform 2 into Service?
Whilst on the subject of Terminal 5 station, note the inclusion of platforms 1 and 2 in the above diagram. These are platforms that have been built but not fitted out with the intention of making them available for future use should the need arise. They were built as part of the construction process for Terminal 5 as adding them retrospectively would have been almost impossible.
Installing track and overhead line as well as fitting out platform 2 suitable for use would appear to be an attractive long-term option which would actually resolve quite a few awkward issues. However, although there is passive provision for using the platform that could be quite easily taken advantage of, access would require a substantial investment in lifts to be able to access it. The lift shaft has been safeguarded but there would still need to be considerable investment to actually install the lifts and make them operational.
The lift shaft currently looks something like this:
whereas it probably needs to look something like this:
A further reason not to bring platform 2 into service, at least not yet, is that the future of Heathrow Express is not assured and the investment would be wasted if Heathrow Express ceased to exist. Even it it survives the 2028 review, it would probably worth waiting until Old Oak Common station was open, which brings additional challenges to Heathrow Express, before committing to such a course of action.
Timetable Challenges
Timetable challenges to any proposal to increase Crossrail services to Terminal 5 are more significant than might be expected. To keep things simple for passengers (and operators) trains from Terminal 5 need to continue to terminate at Shenfield. The service would have to be retimed to shorten the current layover time at Terminal 5, which is currently 15 minutes and incompatible with 4tph. This means that trains must depart sooner after arriving. They then need a train path that is suitable for a return journey to Shenfield which in turn means they must arrive at Paddington at a suitable time.
Currently, trains to Terminal 5 immediately precede an all-stations train to Terminal 4. This makes some kind of sense as it maximises track capacity with the Terminal 5 train stopping at fewer stations than the Terminal 4 train. Unfortunately, on its return journey it follows the train from Terminal 4 which means it is unable to take much advantage, journey-time wise, of its reduced number of station stops. Ideally, the train from Terminal 5 should precede the train from Terminal 4 on its return journey to London but multiple constraints (including the very short turnround time necessary) currently make this practically impossible.
Another problem is needing to fit in with Heathrow Express timing on the double track between Terminal 2&3 and Terminal 5. Adjusting the Heathrow Express timetable is not a simple option, and in a worst-case scenario would require a rewrite of the entire Great Western Main Line timetable with the possible consequential effect of requiring branch line timetables as far as Devon and Cornwall to be rewritten too, to ensure branch line connections are maintained.
If there is still a long-term desire to increase the off-peak service to the eastern Crossrail branches (Shenfield and Abbey Wood) to 10tph on both (it is currently 8tph), this could add a further complication as it is more challenging to graft 4tph to Terminal 5, evenly spaced apart, onto a 10tph frequency to Shenfield than it is onto an 8tph one.
A further timetable challenge is to maximise capacity between Airport Junction and Paddington – or Old Oak Common – in future. This can probably be done by having a more regular stopping pattern for all trains. Basically, as an example, trains would be either all stations or they omit Acton Main Line, Hanwell, and West Ealing. This would have to include all trains to and from Maidenhead and Reading, which might upset some peak travellers with their limited stop train currently running non-stop between West Drayton and Ealing Broadway. In future it might be necessary to add Hayes & Harlington and Southall stops.
A complicating factor is that there are so many possible scenarios to model and see if they work – and all these take time.
Where do the trains come from?
You can’t add a new timetabled service without considering where the trains come from. Here is what we believe is the most likely scenario.
| Enhanced Peak Service | Estimated Number of Extra Trains Required |
| Total of 18tph between Old Old Common and Paddington | 4 |
| Extra 2tph on Paddington – Gidea Park/Shenfield | 1 |
| Extra 2tph Paddington – Abbey Wood | 2 |
| Extra 2tph Old Oak Common – Terminal 5 | 2 |
| Maintenance provision for above | 1 |
| Total | 10 |
We know that TfL are going to receive 10 new trains for Crossrail. These should start to arrive in 2026. We have been told four of these will be needed to extend some trains beyond Paddington to provide 18tph to Old Oak Common where some trains will terminate.
We have also been told that one train will be needed to cover maintenance. Typically, as a rule of thumb for electric multiple units you need, at most, one train out of ten to be allocated to cover maintenance. That means that five trains would be available for as-yet-undecided service enhancements.
We also know that TfL have expressed a strong preference as a top priority for 14tph in the peaks between both Paddington and Shenfield, and Paddington and Abbey Wood. This has become designated ‘Project East’. You can read about Project East in a TfL document or our article which includes details of project East. In a previous article we calculated that what turned out to become Project East would require three extra trains. So, if our calculations are correct, there are still has to be two more out of the allocation of 10 trains that are available for further enhancements.
TfL’s other proposal was for an extension of 4tph from Old Oak Common to West Drayton (‘Project West‘) in the peak hours. We calculated this would require four extra trains and TfL have already stated that they can’t implement both Project East and Project West with the ten extra trains that will be available in the future. They would probably be able to implement 2tph terminating at West Drayton rather than Old Oak Common in the peak period, but 2tph to West Drayton and 2tph to Terminal 5 is rather unsatisfactory and rather against the ethos of a simple timetable and turn up and go. Remember West Drayton already has 6tph in the peak period in the peak direction and the station isn’t nearly as busy as Terminal 5. Very conveniently, an extra 2tph from extended from Old Oak Common to Terminal 5 would require, by our calculations, an extra two trains.
A further advantage of adding trains to the existing Terminal 5 service is that there would be a reasonable number of passengers throughout the day so it could be an all-day service, rather than a peak-only one which wouldn’t be making best use of rolling stock.
What would the service look like?
We are going to make a whole host of assumptions here but we would argue they are reasonable assumptions to make. We won’t necessarily correctly predict the precise service pattern should 4tph to Terminal 5 be implemented but we suspect it will be close to the final solution.
Assumptions made include:
- Project East is implemented in full.
- An extra 2tph to Terminal 5 is implemented.
- TfL has an aspiration to provide at least 6tph for all suburban Crossrail stations in the Greater London Area – at least for the peak hours and probably off-peak as well.
- The service pattern is kept as simple as practicable.
- The peak-period limited stop services to and from Reading will need to make additional stops at Hayes & Harlington and Southall, because it will be impractical to create sufficient gaps to sensibly run non-stop between West Drayton and Ealing Broadway.
- One extra train is sufficient to cover the additional maintenance requirement.
The table below summarises the number of services (excluding Heathrow Express) at the west London Crossrail stations within the Greater London Area.
| Station | Current Trains Per Hour | Possible Future Trains Per Hour |
| Acton Main Line | 4* | 6, possibly 8 |
| Ealing Broadway | 10 (+ 2) | 12 (+ 2) |
| West Ealing | 6 | 6, possibly 8 |
| Hanwell | 4 | 6, possibly 8 |
| Southall | 8 | 12 (+ 2) |
| Hayes & Harlington | 10 | 12 (+ 2) |
| West Drayton | 4 (+ 2) | 4 (+ 2) |
| Heathrow Terminals 2&3 | 6 | 8 |
| Heathrow Terminal 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Heathrow Terminal 5 | 2 | 4 |
The figures in bold and brackets show the peak period enhancement in the peak direction due to a limited stop service to/from Reading being run. For this we have assumed that in future (if two extra tph to Terminal 5 be implemented) it will be necessary for these limited stop trains to make additional stops at Hayes & Harlington and Southall to optimise overall capacity by limiting non-stopping between Hayes & Harlington and Acton Main Line as this generally requires one train to occupy more than one optimised train path.
Acton Main Line (with a *) has an additional two inbound trains call in the morning peak to relieve overcrowding issues at this station.
Despite a desire to have at least 6tph at London suburban stations throughout most of the day, this cannot be achieved at West Drayton outside the peak period due to only 4tph running off-peak between Hayes & Harlington and Maidenhead.
Note that some west London suburban stations on Crossrail currently receive a service that is as good as, or better as their counterparts on the east side of the line and, if the extra services to Terminal 5 are implemented, it is expected that this will apply to more west London stations.
Will this ever happen?
We have no idea of how realistic this all is and, in all probability, it will be the creation of a suitable timetable that will make or break this idea. Given the expected popularity of such a move, if it is reasonably practical it will probably happen one day. Establishing a workable timetable, current lack of trains, disruptive engineering work due to the building of Old Oak Common station, and current remedial action taking place to fix Network Rail reliability issues between Airport Junction and Paddington mean it isn’t going to happen soon. Our previous prediction in an earlier article was “not before 2028”. Perhaps ‘unlikely before 2028’ would be a fairer, updated prediction. Regardless of which prediction is referred to, it does not mean it will happen but, if it does happen, it will take some years to implement.
Many thanks to ngh and Jonathan Roberts for providing a substantial amount of information that has been incorporated into this article.
Interesting to consider the various motivations by connected parties. Should begin with the reason for the order was a closing window to place an order and the new requirement on TfL to serve a temporary HS2 terminus at OOC. The Government also wished to keep the Alstom Derby works open for HS2 work and the minimum order size given by Alstom was for 10 Crossrail units.
Crossrail has experienced rolling stock shortages due to a higher than expected servicing requirement. Might this need continue requiring more cover units.
Disingenuous to dismiss the Express. They have done remarkably well in establishing the service and marketing it. Their finances are private to the Airport but reported passenger numbers indicate that they are consistent in doing what they do.
Since Covid the fall off in Business travel is marked and no doubt the Elizabeth core through running has had some effect.
Table 1223a: Passenger journeys by operator, annual data
“Time period” “Heathrow Express (million)”
Apr 2011 to Mar 2012 5.7
Apr 2012 to Mar 2013 5.6
Apr 2013 to Mar 2014 5.8
Apr 2014 to Mar 2015 5.8
Apr 2015 to Mar 2016 5.8
Apr 2016 to Mar 2017 6.0
Apr 2017 to Mar 2018 6.4
Apr 2018 to Mar 2019 6.2
Apr 2019 to Mar 2020 5.8
Heathrow T5 additional platform investment would serve additional trains whoever operates them. In the scale of projected investment at the airport a few lifts to continue their premiere service could be justified.
In the peak it is awkward to fit all stations and limited stops. Better to blend a closer calling pattern so most stop at a similar number serving different less used intermediate stops.
[Ah, yes. Skip stopping which has already been previously discussed ad nauseum. PoP]
Whatever new service pattern is ready for 2028 will need to incorporate the declaration to Parliament that HS2 will open between 2029 and 2033.
As someone who – having experienced it, now – I think – four times, I openly admit to regarding “LHR” as, even by the low standards of airports, a fair imitation of a preview of Hell, but – there are other considerations, practical ones, for the benefit of the travelling punters.
If you really are going to run a major airport, it’s a practical idea to have a decent & relatively-inexpensive method of getting there (& back) with a regular & frequent service.
Given that & the number of unfortunates already funnelled into LHR, then, yes 4tph to T5 is completely necessary.
I think your second possibility – improving W London services is the nearest to an answer, if only because it’s simple. There’s even an acronym for it, isn’t there?
Which raises a question from your third possibility – is Heathrow Express making & financially-breaking even, now?
So, I must disagree with Alek’s interpretation of “HEX’s” loadings & viability.
You don’t state it out loud, but the easy answer is to take Heathrow Express out & Euthanise it – quickly, thus freeing up those train paths, both in the HAL/LHR tunnels & between Airport Junction & Paddington.
Elephant in the room
Third runway
My opinions on this are simply not for a family magazine, as they say.
But, even if given the go-ahead, it’s going to take .. how long before it’s open?
Eight / ten / twelve years?
And, didn’t we have a series on Berlin’s new Shönefeld airport & the, um “fun” of opening that?
@PoP
Thanks for the analysis.
I wonder if the success of the CBTC signalling system and the GW-ATP to Heathrow has perhaps created the ability to have a better timetable?
Isn’t West Drayton outside the GW-ATP area, as it goes only to Heathrow.
My hunch is that we can fit couple more TPH to Heathrow Terminal 5 because there’s so much effort put into turning the from-Shenfield trains at Paddington – staff are needed there to ensure everyone detrains) that slack time can be used to go to T5 because you cross over the GWML from CBTC to the “safety” of the Heathrow ATO.
@PoP
You raise the possibility of the two extra tph running to and from Terminal 5 on the slow lines. @GregT says that the third runway is the elephant in the room.
I believe that the bigger elephant in the room is HEx, hopefully soon to become an ex-HEx. We don’t know that the repossession of HEx’s paths weren’t part of the deal to secure the third runway. So the question from me is: can HEx’s capacity run on the slow lines into Paddington? I think that would mean the Elizabeth Line running 16 trains west of Paddington, with the two extra T5 trains.
One point missed re HEX is that getting rid of it doesn’t automatically release other long distance paths to the west: those paths are used by the GWR trains which stop at Slough and Maidenhead and cross over to the reliefs at Twyford. So you only get extra paths out of Paddington if you remove the faster journeys to Bucks/Berks/whatever it’s called this week)
What’s beyond the platforms at terminal 5?
I.E. would it be possible to have access to platform 2 via a walkway from platform 3/4?
Or are there “runaway” tracks a bit beyond the platform, and would it be considered unsafe to have a level crossing across the “runaway” for track 3?
With a total of a train every 7½ minute (4tph Express, 4tph Crossrail) divided across three tracks, there would be a train every 22½ minute for each track. If track 1 rather than track 2 would be taken into service then there would be a train arrival every 22½ minutes that might result in activated level crossing gates about three times per hour. With a good platform/track usage I would think that it would be possible to have those level crossing gates for track 3 activated at times that almost never interferes with passengers getting to/from track 1.
P.S. TBH if either track 2 or 1 would be activated, it seems like a bad idea to not just go ahead and build both tracks at the same time. Would cost slightly more equipment and would add the maintenance cost of an additional switch, but still. (The maintenance cost of the tracks would be the same as I would think at these frequencies maintenance costs are almost linear to track mileage).
Possible update
Just now on BBC R4, a clear “speculation” ( Someone has got wind of an upcoming government announcement? ) that a Second Runway for Gatwick is going to be approved, as soon as this week.
At which point, 3rd-runway for LHR is kicked way out into the long grass … I would think?
[I would think a lot of people would argue the opposite is true. The runway will only be suitable for narrow-body take-offs so not that much of an expansion. And the counter-argument is that it shows the government is going for growth and expansion. I don’t want the comments section to turn into a discussion about Heathrow expansion which, even if approved now, is years away. PoP]
The new trains will still need inspection, testing and shakedown running after delivery in 2026.
Heathrow has 89m air passengers, 75k workers daily make 55m annual journeys, & total rail journeys are 19m split Crossrail 40%, Piccadilly 36%, & Express 24%.
Greg, Ian Sergeant
Concerning Heathrow Express…
I was really surprised to read in Modern Railways (March 2025, p67) that in the last financial year Heathrow Express had a turnover of £94m and operating costs of only £75m. Given they hardly have any assets (so no real chance to fiddle the books there) and just about the entire operation is subcontracted to GWR, this has to be a genuine profit of around 20% which most companies, in any sector, can only dream of.
On that basis, they will probably fight for a continued existence. It shows that nearly empty trains can make a nice profit if the fares are high enough. Of course, whether it is right to tie up four critical paths on the Great Western Main Line per hour per direction for the benefit of a few passengers and the owners of the company is another matter.
To partially answer Ian’s question, numbers to Heathrow Terminal 5 station on either Crossrail and HEx are a really low when you look at the number of passengers per train. Over both companies I calculated an average of 100 entries and exits per train. If evenly split that is just 50 entries and 50 exits. So 4tph is more than adequate to provide the necessary capacity. (And if you think that is bad, the current figure for Terminal 4 is just 21 – but Terminal 4 is temporary restricted by current runway capacity and other factors).
Brian Butterworth,
Concerning signalling…
GW-ATP no longer operates in the Heathrow Tunnel. The electrical noise was incompatible with Class 345 Crossrail trains. It is all done with ETCS to a standard that is as safe as GW-ATP. I thought GW-ATP was totally dead but can’t be sure.
There are no plans to introduce ETCS between Westbourne Park sidings/Paddington and Acton Main Line until Old Oak Common station is complete.
I can’t work out exactly what the signalling is between Acton Main Line and Airport Junction despite asking around. If it is currently ETCS, which I doubt, it is almost certainly not ‘proper’ ETCS but ‘fake’ or overlay ETCS which basically is the cruder AWS with an interface so that it looks like ETCS to the trains.
Herned,
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. If you get rid of HEx you free off 4 train paths into Paddington. The Didcot Parkway semi-fasts are the only other passenger trains that normally use the relief lines (OK, and the Greenford shuttle once a day in each direction Mon-Sat). The Didcot Parkway trains operate 2tph all-day Mon-Sat an 1tph on Sunday. So these occupy 2tph of the remaining slots. I don’t think anyone was thinking that getting rid of HEx slots would release anything other than HEx slots.
MiaM,
Beyond the platforms at Terminal 5 is approximately two carriage lengths of overrun tunnels which fits in with the diagram showing the track layout there. It is hard to describe and one cannot get a good view as areas are blocked off but I suspect there is an awful lot of concrete down there blocking the way that should be left alone. I can’t help thinking that they thought this all through at the time and the only realistic way to go forward is to build the lifts.
I can’t see ORR allowing a new pedestrian level crossing of railway tracks anywhere in the current safety climate let alone at a station.
Pop
Agreed
Maybe we need a separate thread – NOT here & not now – on priorities in transport expenditure.
Like monies for E-W rail & HS2, now, rather than pie-in-the –sky for LHR in 10 years time?
[Lots of things we perhaps should write about. But objective research takes time. PoP]
Pedantic of Purley,
ETCS level 2 is used between Ealing Broadway and Heathrow/ Stockley Bridge Junction, it is an overlay system however there is no TPWS in the Heathrow tunnels. If a train fails to transition to ETCS bound for Heathrow it must drive in AWS at 40mph in the Heathrow tunnels as far as T2 & T3 and cannot have passengers past that point.
[Thank you for the information which is really appreciated. PoP]
They probably have enough Drivers, but I can remember being told “we’ve had 15 drivers quit since Christmas” and that was mid February a few years back. Out of approx 500 drivers, that’d be a stunningly High Staff Turnover
Heathrow Express’s annual accounts for 2023 can be found here:
https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/investor/reports-and-presentations/annual-accounts/expres/HEX_31.12.2023.pdf
They show income of £103 million and costs of £85 million. If the Modern Railways numbers PoP quotes are from 2024, then that suggests that income is down nearly 10% but they have managed to maintain high profitability by reducing costs. If their income continues to decline, though, how much scope do they have to reduce costs further without reducing train frequency (which would ruin their commercial appeal)?
Interestingly a footnote shows that they paid £15 million in track access charges to their parent company to use the 9km of Heathrow infrastructure, and only £12 million to Network Rail to use the 18km from Paddington to the tunnel entrance – so more than twice as expensive per km than Network Rail – presumably TfL pay the same track access charges.
@PoP:
Oh, of course there would likely be concrete structures that might obstruct my suggestion.
Otherwise in general I would think that the overrun space partially exists to make it easier to connect any extension.
Thinking about this a bit, if there aren’t any obstructions it might be possible to move track 3 so it ends up in the middle between where track 3 and 2 are supposed to be, and then obviously extend the platform to match the track. That might create enough space for a level crossing even if concrete structures would otherwise be in the way. (This of course assumes that the additional track taken into service would be track 1 rather than 2).
[The current, rather vague, long term intention is that platforms 3 & 4 are used for any extension northwards (e.g. back to the GWML and on to Reading) and Platforms 1 and 2 are used for any proposal that envisages approaching from the south (e.g. from the Staines direction) as was the plan under the failed Airtrack scheme. PoP]
I agree that it would be unlikely that such a crossing would be approved. Technically it could be made safe by having gates that not only stops passengers to enter the crossing when it’s closed, but also stops passengers from wandering off on the track bed rather than go where they are supposed to do. Still probably impossible to get a go-ahead. Also a problem might be that it would need to be a decent bit into the runway tunnel space to accommodate ramps between platform level and rail head level.
On the other hand, given that there seems to be no reduction in Heathrow traffic in any foreseeable future it might be worth building the full planned infrastructure for the platform for track 1/2 anyways.
The question is who would pay for this?
==============
Luke warm take: If the main issue is to get a way to run more Crossrail trains on the line to Heathrow, and any increased train frequency to T5 is just a bonus, an option would be to fit track 1+2 but don’t build the passenger infrastructure (and just have some emergency ramps to allow walking between the platforms to allow for passengers exiting in an emergency situation). That way the suggested additional 2tph could run but not in service between T5 and T2+3.
==================
Re the express service: Why not do a deal between Crossrail and the express service so that some of the Crossrail trains that currently terminate at Paddington do the express run, and use whichever mechanism the express service already uses to ensure collecting a higher ticket fare? To avoid the problem of passengers for example falling asleep not wanting to pay the extra fare a solution would be to allow those passengers to simply stay on the train back to Paddington. Not sure if much is gained by doing this, but still…
@PoP: with the ETCS overlaid on existing systems you probably mean Level 1 Limited Supervision?
OpenRailwayMap displays ETCS all the way from the Paddington platforms to Heathrow and West Drayton.
I’m not sure it matters to providing an even 4tph to Terminal 5 whether each eastern branch has 8tph or 10tph. With 8tph, all Terminal 5 services come from the same branch; with 10tph, they alternate between branches.
The other factor here, albeit some way out, are the possibilities of the WRATH north-western link to Langley / Reading (quite likely?) and HSR south-western link to Woking / Basingstoke (rather less likely?) being revived. Either or both would, as referenced above by @PoP, constrain T5 platform options but I can also see why 4tph to T5 might be seen as an early bid by TfL to operate the WRATH service – or at least complicate options for any other contenders. There are a whole host of political, funding, operator and ownership debates to come around WRATH & HSR which will make the ORR/HAL/TfL Track Access Charges spat seem playful, but I can see why TfL might want a dog in the fight. Another contender is for HAL/GWR to bid to resuscitate HEx as a RDG-T5-T2/3-PAD premium service, so I can quite see why TfL would want to stake a claim now.
@B&T proposed by Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd (HSR) which has said it could open in 2027/28. In September 2023, Mr Khan said the rail link would support a shift to sustainable travel and transform access to the airport.
The idea of the Heathrow proposal is that surface ‘improvements’ (alterations) be privately funded. The public ownership part is paying for the operators ?
HSR say the new Government has expressed interest in finding ways to harness private sector finance to make the delivery of major infrastructure schemes more affordable.
Department for Transport said: “Any proposal would need to be developed in a way that does not require government funding and secures significant benefits. We continue to discuss options and engage with promoters on this process.”
@Stephen : do you in the “internal transfer” trains that used to run without leaving airport still run? They are (were) for passengers transferring (their luggage still the baggage system) between the terminals.
From memory they’re suppressed in the main “Darwin” data feeds and are free to use (as it the Piccadilly) as long you had a transfer ticket.
Looking at GWR180/Sequences 01 to 03 perhaps this train are going from 2/3 to 5 back to 2/3 getting in the way of any new Liz services and it’s just suppressed for the CIS system because you literally can’t buy tickets for them?
Can anyone confirm they still exist?
If it does exist this might be how someone has found the bits to run the two extra trains to T5 for a reasonable budget?
I seem to recall this was as single call
BrIan Butterworth,
Answer 1) No. They don’t run. Except, I think, one early morning HEx train that departs Paddington out-of-service and starts in service at Terminals 2&3 to provide a free early morning link to Terminal 5.
Answer 2) It would be almost impossible that they did still run. They can’t sensibly run to Terminal 4 because of the single track section between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 4. They can’t run between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 5 otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing the problems of running an extra 2tph to Terminal 5 given that the current Crossrail trains have a 15 minute layover. This layover time can be shortened but that brings us into timetable challenge territory.
For the benefit of all, the internal transfer trains ran in the days when there was only a half-hourly service to Terminal 4 from Paddington. Prior to Crossrail, this was provided for by the now defunct Heathrow Connect service. To provide a 15 minute service to terminal 4, a Heathrow Express train would arrive at Terminal 5, return to Terminals 2&3, run to Terminal 4, then return to Terminals 2&3 and end up back at Terminal 5 ready for its next departure to Paddington. Note that there was no dedicated ‘internal transfer’ trains – just ordinary trains operating this additional service.
Regarding the “utility” of HEX (passenger load) vs the presented “profitability” of HEX, I wonder if there would be any useful interim benefit to for the government to require HEX to increase their passenger loading by offering more competitive fares (with suitable publicity), as a part of approvals for any expansion of the airport, until such time as a future of HEX is agreed. Encouraging green travel.
Fare improvements would be a mixture of cost, and terms (refundability of prepurchased tickets in case of airline delay, range of valid times for prepurchased tickets from the airport, and maybe bundling/through ticketing e.g. Travelcard or connecting railway journeys with cross london Tube travel. One stop shop for a customers travel mission.
Or maybe Sir Kahn would propose to take over HEX along the lines of his desire to take over some/all of Southeastern/Great Northnern, with fares coordination/timetabling with Lizzie (eventually harmonising the fleet).
In terms of growth, I wish the government would provide long term funding to Tfl to create a stream of work for Alstom, for extra trains/carriages for Lizzie but also train replacement/fleet normalisation for overground (the trains bought for Goblin are already used regularly for service for the other lines) and any other services that TfL take over, potentially with TfL owning the asset instead of a Rosco
From memory, as designed, there are 6 platforms at T5. Two PICC, two HEx (and now Crossrail), two safeguarded for connections to west along with a safeguarded route out in that direction. There are major concrete structural columns on each platform that would prevent the layout from being reconfigured at all. There will be ‘soft spots’ in the structural decks above for fitting the lifts but it might require reconfiguring the perfume sales intestines or something like that.
I used to have a staff pass for HEx. Think it was about £150/month. Rudest ticket inspectors I have ever experienced anywhere in the world which is ironic given that, per mile, it was more expensive than a ticket on Concorde. Since I had to change onto a local bus at T2 to get to my final destination anyway, I realised that I could add zones 4-6 onto my travel card for a lot less money and get a connection to a more frequent bus at Hayes and Harlington.
@MilesT TfL did buy the Alstom trains but when they had a revenue stream for them they were sold to the ROSCO. Indications are that use of external funding will continue.
A HeX single fare is £25, from annual data their average fare is £20.90.
Staff travel is a large addressable market especially as they are frequent users that are easier to influence, and staff parking is becoming more difficult. The 350 companies employ personnel around the peripheral service zones in addition to the terminals. Orbital bus routes serve Hatton Cross, T4 & T5 with free travel for holders of staff ID. I have been driven from T3 in a staff minibus through a tunnel to the Cargo Clearance on the south side when a courier. It was small and may now be a baggage route.
Most staff naturally live within the vicinity so the HSR would serve local commutes along with longer air passenger points.
Heathrow ceased subsidising bus travel for Passengers during COVID. Going forward they are under more scrutiny for their charges and transparency. The Express has a marketing and status value to the Airport but will they be allowed to pay for that part.
After reading this piece I spotted Simon Calder wrote about how airlines may be swapping terminals at Heathrow today. He’s even suggesting BA might be out of T5 with a move towards airlines grouped by their alliances . I realise it’s all speculation but I can see it might affect which terminal needs most trains.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/heathrow-terminals-airlines-expansion-passengers-b2706071.html
@ap – LHR Terminal occupancy aligned with alliances was always the ambition, complicated by their changing membership, albeit not as proposed by Simon Calder who I guess is mainly trying to wind up BA. T5X and 3rd runway would (will?) complicate things, but earlier versions of the Masterplan had the T5 toast-rack continuing eastwards across (replacing) the fuel farm and merging with T3 for BA / oneworld, T4 for SkyTeam and T2 for Star. Prising T5 from BA isn’t going to happen, although they do have very ambivalent views on greater integration with other oneworld carriers at LHR.
@PoP “internal transfer trains ran in the days ”
Was this the ‘Heathrow Airport’ service recorded until 2005?
It began with some 662k annual transfer passengers, if these are now included in the Terminal Station numbers any idea what % are ‘free’ now.
[I have always assumed that these passengers are not included in the figures. Maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong. PoP]
Future Rolling Stock purchases could be by Eurofima which finances rolling stock across Europe for countries as diverse as Sweden, Spain, and Turkey. It has non-EU countries like Norway and Serbia among its members. Its non-profit-maximising approach offers competitive financing rates compared to ROSCOs, whose blended funding costs range between 5% and 7%.
Transport Minister Simon Lightwood has confirmed ongoing discussions with Eurofima, emphasising its potential to support a long-term industrial strategy for UK rolling stock. By joining Eurofima, the UK TOCs could access cheaper financing for new train procurement while avoiding the need to directly include these costs on the government’s balance sheet.
@ ap + B&T
Fascinating to see from your comments how further change in airline use of specific facilities and location of terminals could influence how planes and passenger flows might redistribute between T5 core, the intermediate toast racks, and T2/3.
But would it make any difference to the rail service specification below ground? Logistically is it likely to increase or reduce passenger volumes using specific stations?
Not by very much, I would argue, and surely TfL (and HEx) care more about the gross volume of users at each station, plus a ‘weighted’ assessment about their propensity to use different transport modes – for obvious reasons, fewer UK residents use public transport to/from the airport compared to people resident abroad!
There’s also a luggage component to consider, mostly split long-haul vs short-haul. It would be interesting to review how different the stats of rail users would be if some volumes weren’t assessed on an average loadweigh number of 75 kg per person plus baggage – which is what TfL uses as a system metric. Is that really a good measure at an airport?!
Looking more generally at airport connectivity, eventually one UK government or another will have to take a view whether public transport to and from Heathrow and its supporting infrastructure should be modified, from being largely London-centric (and almost wholly London-centric by rail) to a network allowing greater accessibility from nearby shires (for airline passengers and airline/airport staff), and more distant regions (fewer numbers, mostly passengers who don’t find a regional airport useful for flights to destinations beyond Europe).
Gatwick (and its second runway scheme for expansion) might point the way, with greater diversity of sub-regional catchments because of its location directly on a more widespread rail network. Heathrow compares adversely, as it wasn’t built adjoining a main line railway so has historically always suffered from that, and needs large capital cost to become better connected.
Funding the related infrastructure investment will be the key for that, where the current pricey Heathrow track charges model at least provides some baseline for a mechanism, where there should be some commercial reward to whoever builds new line(s) west and/or south, providing the core rail passenger volumes are sufficiently busy. Perhaps the recovery in air travel volume post-Covid now provides a new starting point for such rail schemes to be reconsidered.
@Jonathan Roberts Your view about wider transport alignments prompts a view that I have long held about airports in Southern England.
My view the Roskill commission was actually very prescient, and their inclusion of Cublington in Bucks was pretty much right for a modern context, sadly killed off by Nimbys. In summary, my view is the right place for an airport to cover the majority of flights for majority is England population would be “en route” of HS2, on the Bucks/Warks border, not far from the original Cublington proposal. That also makes HS2 make more sense as a rail project.
Lean into that location with excellent rail service, additional motorway connectivity, develop a purpose newbuilt 3-4 runway 24 hour airport (also much better for freight), and close everything else that is within 1 hour approx by train or road. That means close Heathrow, Birmingham, East Midlands, Stansted, Coventry, Luton, maybe Bristol, and downscale Manchester, Gatwick. (Maybe allow Luton to continue as general aviation and as a emergency overspill airport, and keep Stansted as emergency, specialist heavy freight, and for VIPs)
Keep City (expand a little, expand domestic traffic), Eastleigh, Norwich, Newquay/Exeter, Southend, and Cardiff (all too far from a Central England airport). Don’t let Cambridge reopen for commercial service, don’t allow commercial service from any new small airfields close into London.
@Jonathan Roberts – very well-considered post!
Without wishing to turn this into a thread devoted to LHR (and LGW / South East airports) expansion it’s pretty scary how little focus is given to surface access within the latest available vision presented by HAL
Link: https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/about/expansion/Heathrow-Expansion-Consultation-June-2019.pdf
In a 110-page document rail access gets one paragraph (on page 64) and is sketchy to the point of evasive about what contribution HAL would make to further rail provision. Coach / Bus provision seems to be the extent of their public transport interest and ambition, and a cynical view might be that there is more profit to be made from car parking (which gets a LOT of coverage) / pax drop-off charging than opening up affordable and non-London-centric rail options.
The final outcome will differ from the 2019 document – I can’t see any government of whatever hue letting them get away with the pathetic surface access proposals here – but still useful to see HAL’s initial stance.
I have long felt that a solution to the overcrowding from Paddington to Hayes, with inward morning peak travel from those local stations coinciding with the peak of long distance inward travellers to Heathrow with all their baggage, would be to “agree” with Heathrow, as part of some wider developments there, to make the Express fares on the same basis as the Elizabeth, with standard Oyster charging, etc, and an Out Of Station interchange at Paddington onto the Underground.
This would divert a good proportion of those occupying Elizabeth space in the Elizabeth along the GWML into the Express. It does seem a nonsense to have two parallel services from Heathrow into Paddington, one grossly underused and the other notably overcrowded. Best of all, it could be implemented tomorrow.
Well, we have precedent on Gatwick. Two busy services, and a third grossly underused. All run by the same company but with a ton of restrictions and pitfalls.
Imagine if the GatEx paths (far simpler than HEx) could add frequency to Clapham, East Croydon and south of Gatwick. Those trains are full. Sadly we do tolerate these less than ideal scenarios.
Back to topic, HAL have much more control here. If I were them, I’d be thinking about those other ways of expansion (Southern / WRATH) – and integrating the various routes into a useable hub. Per Schiphol. And retail. Office developments, again look at Schiphol – walkable directly to tons of global employers… etc etc – in other words, take what they have and build upon it as revenue streams. Where HEx in time thus plays a smaller role. And maybe they can let it evolve. It’ll have OOC calls mandated correct?
And OOC itself will hit a lot of the longer distance Paddington double-back traffic (Hayes has the shorter distance) – so they’ll likely need to adapt.
@MiaM
I have long believed that incorporating the express service into Crossrail would have been a desirable outcome. Sadly though, the infrastructure doesn’t provide the connection from the GWR main lines to the Crossrail tunnels that would make it possible. And it’s very hard to see how that could be solved; perhaps a flyover or diveunder at Ladbroke Grove or in the Acton area is possible, but it wouldn’t be cheap.
@MilesT
Or maybe just expand the underused Birmingham Airport, which already has good rail connections and an HS2 station under construction? Yes the site is somewhat constrained but another runway might be possible to the South, or by rebuilding the NEC.
my main issue with getting to Heathrow is that trains don’t start early enough if you have an early flight and from my nearest train station East Croydon involves too many changes. Trains from Farringdon don’t start early enough. There should be more expansion for people living in South London.
Would it be so bad to quick fix the 15-min T5 turnaround issue by holding trains for 1-2 mins on the inbound to T5 for a slightly later arrival while the previous train departs? Not tidy, but would achieve 4tph without any timetable recasting either on the GWML or on Crossrail.
The additional trains would then meet existing Shenfield paths at Paddington.